ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Assessment of an Articulating Laparoscopic Needle Holder (FlexDex™) Compared to a Conventional Rigid Needle Holder in 2-Dimension Vision Amongst Novices: A Randomised Controlled Study.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of learning curves and cross-over effects using articulating laparoscopic instruments versus standard laparoscopic instruments.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy in 10 equids using a single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) port device.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aims to compare novice performance of advanced bimanual laparoscopic skills using an articulating laparoscopic device (FlexDex™) compared to a standard rigid needle holder amongst surgical novices in 2-dimension (2D) visualisation.
methodsIn this prospective randomised trial, novices (n = 40) without laparoscopic experience were recruited and randomised into two groups, which used either traditional rigid needle holders or the FlexDex™. Both groups performed 10 repetitions of a validated assessment task. Times taken and error rates were recorded, and results were evaluated based on completion times, error rates, and learning curves.
resultsThe intervention group that used the FlexDex™ completed 10 attempts of the standardised laparoscopic task slower than the control group that used traditional rigid needle holder (415 s versus 267 s taken for the first three attempts and 283 s versus 187 s taken for the last three attempts, respectively). The difference in average time for the first three and last three attempts reached statistical significance (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the intervention group demonstrated a higher error rate when compared to the control group (9.3 versus 6.2 errors per individual).
conclusionWhen compared to the FlexDex™, the traditional rigid needle holder was observed to be superior in task performance speed, leading to shorter completion times and quicker learning effect, as well as fewer errors. KEY STATEMENT: Traditional rigid needle holder leads to faster task completion times and lower error rates when compared with an articulating laparoscopic needle holder in 2D vision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.